Clock question

[SideLine]

Consider the following quiz play and subsequent answer.  I'm a noob so I'm having trouble with why these are on the snap.  Wouldn't it depend on whether we're under 2:00 in the half?

1)   A/3-5/B40.  While running his route, receiver A80 steps out of bounds.  QB A9 is at the B48, under duress and in the tackle box when he passes to A80, who is the only receiver in the area.  A80 catches the ball and runs out of bounds at the B20.   Ruling/Clock: A/4-5/B20 or A/4-13/B48.  Both on the snap

[Legacy Zebra]

Yes, you are correct. The only things that stopped the clock here are penalty enforcement and a Team A ball carrier out of bounds. So the clock status depends on how much time is left in the half.

But beside that, the rulings here are a mess in my opinion. The second option should be the only option if the penalty is accepted, 4th & 13 from B-48. The first option given is not an option at all. The play starts as 3rd & 5 from the B-40, how can 4th & 5 be from the B20? Second, 4th & 5 is not an option from any spot on the field. I believe they tried to apply illegal touching here since A80 went out of bounds and touched the forward pass which would be loss of down at the previous spot. However, that only applies to LEGAL forward passes. Since the passer was in the tackle box, under duress, and threw a pass into an area without an eligible receiver, this was not a legal forward pass and illegal touching is not applicable here.

Team B's only options are to accept the intentional grounding penalty and it will be A 4/13 from the B-48, or decline the intentional grounding penalty and it will be A 1/10 from the B-20 (the result of the play). Either way, the clock depends on how much time is left in the half.

[dvasques]

I know that's the letter of the rule
But shouldn't we consider that this pass to A80 was not an attempt to get rid of the ball to avoid pressure?
I know it's weird to judge intention but is it the responsibility of the QB to know his receiver has stepped out of bounds?

And at that, the mechanics for this would be flag for illegal touching. Then, covering official speaks to R. Then R realized QB was under duress and grounded the ball. Then flag from R for illegal forward pass?

[bossman72]

The only foul I see here is illegal touching.  Loss of down at previous spot.  I would not get the QB for ING.

4/5 @ B40

[SideLine]

Thanks all.  There's been a lot of discussion about whether to go w/ Int. Grounding here.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I don't see how we could make a judgement here that the QB was not throwing to an eligible receiver.  All that I would have is the Illegal Touching.  For this to be ING we would have to rule that the QB knew that his receiver had become ineligible during the play and I'm not going there.

[Kalle]

I don't see how we could make a judgement here that the QB was not throwing to an eligible receiver.  All that I would have is the Illegal Touching.  For this to be ING we would have to rule that the QB knew that his receiver had become ineligible during the play and I'm not going there.

Actually, the intent is not required. The rule simply says that if the QB avoids loss of yardage by throwing the ball to an ineligible receiver, it is a foul, no matter if the QB knows the receiver to be ineligible or not.

That said, as a supervisor I wouldn't give too much grief to a referee who would decide not to call ING in this situation.

[Joe Stack]

I know you all but made this point theoretical, but the intent of the ineligible receiver RULE (not necessarily the intent of the QB when playing) IS a huge factor. The intent of the rule is to penalize a QB throwing to a known ineligible receiver -- not to a receiver who becomes ineligible by his own actions. The QB doesn't know the receiver stepped out of bounds, PLUS, the covering official could waive off the foul by ruling that the defender forced the receiver out.

By changing the rules about grounding years ago to allow the QB to throw anywhere across the NZ while out of the pocket, I think the committee made clear they only wanted the team penalized when the QB clearly abused that privilege. I'm obviously not throwing a flag for grounding/etc. here, but I also don't agree that even in theory this would be a foul.

[Bwest]

I would expect a downgrade (at a minimum!) for flagging ING here. The QB is obviously not throwing a pass to conserve yardage, he is throwing a pass to make a completion. The fact that the receiver is not eligible is not known to him.